i'll get you a source asap... i was just giving a number that i remember...

again... as far as children go... same law as adults... if a guy raped a 3 year old girl... it would be the same penalty as raping a 300 year old woman...

you are trying to put modern terminology onto an ancient culture... it doesn't always work like that... they all fall under the word rape...

edited: i found a source for you...

http://twigs-n-sprigs.safeshopper.com/473/cat473.htm?796

if you go to GOOGLE and type "gospel preached" percent

you'll get a lot of search results...

You need to understand that the only reason WHY you follow chrsit, is because you have it put on to you by family ect..................its ALL you know

Think about those who havent..and all they know is THEIR God is right not the chrsitian version of God....................their God

After all its called FAITH for a reason...

see??

I wasn't talking about the rape, I was talking about the aftermath. Did anyone ask Dinah what she wanted to happen to her attacker? When she was promised in marriage to him, was she asked?



A man could marry the woman to pay for his crime if her father permitted it... what about her consent?

And besides... if what Dinah's brothers did was considered wrong then how can their punishment of their sister's rapist be considered as evidence to demonstrate the Bible's (God's) stance with regards to the punishment of a rapist?

You've never met a little kid who doesn't know who Jesus is? You really believe that 98% of the world's little ones know who Jesus is? My friend (a Christian who has been reading Bible stories to her son since he was in the womb) asked him when he was about two years old "who is Jesus?"... he replied "Mooses dad". He meant Moses' dad of course.

Besides, there's a distinct difference between knowing who he is and believing in him. And does a small child even understand what it is that they're believing in? They believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy... they believe pretty much whatever you tell them until they learn better and figure out mum and dad don't know everything. Heck, my mum used to tell me to count the monkeys in the trees to keep me quiet on a long journey... I looked and looked, never found one but believed they did indeed live along the M1 motorway.

In a way that is rather vague.

When Christ walked the earth and performed miracles did he only cure the Jew or the follower? No he cured all. He loved all. Christ loves and cares for all in the world. Judgement is done by the Lord not by man or church or Bible. How do you know the non believer is damned? Have you been to the end and seen it or do you talk to God or Christ personally and get the truth? "Then were there children brought for to Jesus to bless and pray unto but the deciples sent them away. And Jesus said "let the little children come to me for such is the Kingdom of Heaven."

"Jesus loves all the little children, all the children of the world"

Thanks for that...but why didn't Jesus, make a rule NEVER to hurt any lil child regardless of its belief...after all aren't children without sin??

I am sure he would have made that a rule if he had written the Bible himself.

looks perfectly clear to me

it was a set up... so her consent wasn't needed... she came to them and said... that guy raped me... so they PRETENDED to be ok with it so they could kill him...



what they did to the guy wasn't the wrong part... the wrong part came in where they killed the rest of the men in the city... even though they hadn't done anything...



true... little kids will believe anything... lol... and maybe that was the point... maybe it was indeed a cover all type of statement...

He did when he said do not hurt or harm anyone. Anyone would be in whole everyone, from the tiniest infant to the eldest man. This also pertains to all around the world from the devil worshipper to the most snobby thiest skeptic around. "Love you neighbor as I have loved you and as you would love yourself."

But let's say, hypothetically, that they had been in ernest and had agreed to the marriage... would her consent have been needed for a marriage to take place? Was only her father's needed?

Actual words in child sexual abuse??

lol... you're fighting a useless battle... i've been saying what you just said the whole time... my conclusion is that some people don't know what the word EVERYONE means... nor do some of them understand the word MAN covers all ages of males... and WOMAN covers all ages of females...

can someone pull up the definition of the word EVERYONE so that some of these people can grasp the meaning?

lets say hypothetically that they had a rolls royce and they told him he could have it...

we could hypotheically say anything we want... it didn't happen that way... but if it had... it wouldn't have mattered because her father would have to agree... which he wouldn't have...

but let's just wait a minute before we start harping on women's rights... i haven't heard anyone complain once about men's rights...

please don't forget that sons were promised in the marriage equation also... they didn't always have a choice... i'm sure plenty of sons married girls that they didn't want to marry... just because their parents had an arranged marriage planned for them...

any women's rights people want to tackle that issue?

Point out one of the commandments where is goes on about sex abuse on to children..please do that

Saying do not harm someone or anyone..placed somewhere in the middle of a bible with over a million words in it....dont cut the jib

no one has been able to point out a passage in the bible where it clearly reads - do not have sexual interference with lil children ...........it just don't say this
and all I have see mainly is..yeaa but...no but...yeaa but..blah!!

Using dont harm anyone..is not really jumping out at the bible

the 10 commandments on the other hand DO jump out

Why do you think that is??

Sexual interference with lil babies and children..people...........thats what I am looking for

Womens Lib wasnt the most sought after tradition back in those days. Boy or Girl children were considered property of their parents. Arranged marrage has been around for ever from the Far East to the Native Americans. It was just the way it was. Sure from a womans point of view from the present it sucked. But back then it was tradition and a ready occurence for young women. Look how women were even in the 1800's and early 1900's, they went to school and then planned on getting married. But I am sure that in this case the woman or girl would have a say in weither the man was to be betrothed to her or stoned. And I am sure as a father of daughters myself, from a father's own judgement that a majority of the rapists were stoned.

you should try This website

But we're not talking simply about women being promised in marriage... we're talking about raped women being promised in marriage. If a raped man was promised in marriage to his female rapist I'd be against that too. Where did that happen in the Bible?

Women were the posessions of their father until they married and then became that of their husband. My earlier question was whether the crime of rape was considered a crime against the woman, or a crime against the man who she belonged to?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

28 If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

50 shekels of silver... to her father. Because the girl was violated, or because a man's property was?

i agree BM..IMO the bible seems to encourage mistreatment to kids, such as spare the rod spoil the child, , If a child disobeys stone them, from a book that is to be taken literal, is infallable, gods word, and often interpreted by a preacher or priest, the general attitude around 'sex;' is its bad and sinful, shame seems to be the keyword ,unless you are married of course... .... not to long ago read a most compelling true story from mormon woman who started sexual abuse meetings for other mormons who had been abused by their fathers, it was shocking the amount... , some 'religous ' initiation type thing...One out of three girls will be sexually violated ,1 out of five boys , yes Bm i would like to see the scriptures that clearly state this is heinous????

bible Advocates prostitution???? hmmmm

Of course we today view this as sick. That's our culture. In their culture it is the norm. They were mostly arranged marriages and if either partner didn't want to marry, then generally that's just their bad luck. For the survival of the tribe, they needed to start producing children as soon as they were old enough. If that meant that the woman would be having children against her will (ie, rape), then so be it - it had to be done for the survival of the tribe. Today's culture has not experienced this, cannot experience this, cannot know what it means. You judge another culture on the basis of your own morality. I wonder how, in 2000 years people will judge our culture? What backwards ways would they see in us and laugh at us for?

I don't know, BM. You are right, the Bible does not say anything against this. But in the same vein, neither does the Bible condone this behaviour - that the rule is not in there does not mean it is met with approval

In our society, it is. I have never denied it. But back in ancient Israel, it was commonplace - nay, necessary. That was my point.

My thoughts are that it is wrong. I don't believe the ancient Israelites believed differently either. There is no indication of this. As I said, the Bible may not condemn, but neither does it condone. I don't think that the Bible need address every single aspect of the human condition, and it seems silly to argue that somehow the evidence of a law condemning child abuse is indicative of the Bible condoning this behaviour. Unless you are not holding this view, in which case I apologise, but ask taht you clarify because there seems no point in discussing this point if the Bible does not condone this issue.

Regards, PA

there are absolutely no cases in the Bible that i can recall where a raped woman was promised to the man that raped her...

what does it matter who it was considered a crime agains?

if you kill someone in our culture... you go to jail to pay your debt to society... so is murder a crime against the victim or a crime against society? you are pretty much asking me the same thing...

almost everything is in the middle... but because it's not to your standards... then it's not good enough... did i get that right?



we've tried to explain the culture to you... we've tried to explain that using our cultures terminology to interpret their laws is just plain foolish... MEN meant all males and WOMEN meant all females... what is so hard to understand about that?




actually... the 10 commandments only jump out because you are familiar with the term... just like the entire book of Leviticus jumps out at me when people ask about the laws... that's usually the first place i turn to... maybe you should actually read it... then you wouldn't have to guess at what's there or not there...

In the eyes of my parents I'm a rebellious son. My mom has looked me in the eye and said I deserve to be tortured in hell for "spitting in God's face". I have yet to be stoned to death, so I think people back in Bible times got the short end of the deal.

And it never said death-worthy criminal son. It said rebellious. You threw the criminal part in because you can't accept anything barbaric in the Bible for what it is.

But it was given as a possibility.



You really don't see why it matters? If the actual rape of a woman is what is considered the crime it is entirely different to the crime arising from the "use", if you like, of another man's property... like milking his cow without his permission.

The fact is that in modern times the crime would be against the victim and society... not a crime against the victim's father/husband and society.

failed to make your point so you just figured you'd throw out any ol' statement...
yeah... it's OBVIOUS that it was a possiblity... that's how this conversation started...



nope i don't see why it matters... and you did realize that you said the same thing twice right?

society includes the husband and father... that's why families can sue the killers of their loved ones... and they can sue people accused of killing their loved ones even if they are declared innocent... OJ is a perfect example...

so i guess the law really hasn't changed much...

the only difference is that now... i would conclude that every person is PUBLIC property instead of PRIVATE property...

I haven't failed to make any point, and I'm not throwing out any old statement. I broke it down into its simplest term because you didn't seem to be following what I was saying.

My original question... way back... was "Is it not right to take advantage of the engaged girl because taking advantage of a girl is wrong, full stop, or is it because she's the property of another man?"

And your response at the end of all this is "what does it matter?". It's a simple enough question I asked... you haven't answered it... and that's fine. But why do you keep on telling me it doesn't matter? Fine it doesn't matter to you, you've made that point, ok. To you, it isn't relevant... now can we please move past that?



Oh my.

The modern legal system allows the family to sue, yes. But assume that the crime is not murder... let's go back to rape, as that was the subject of my original question, and consider that the victim of that crime is alive following the crime... she would be considered the one who the crime was committed against, not the man who owned her.

The Bible stating that it is a crime to rape another man's wife isn't the same as it saying it is a crime to rape a woman, full stop. And before you say it again... everyone here present is a witness to the fact that I accept thaphantum considers the difference irrelevant.

"But but Satan, talk about mixed signals - she was wearing a mini-skirt!"

my response was that it was wrong in GENERAL... why does it matter why it is specifically wrong?

you still haven't answered that... further more... i fully understood what you were saying... but you didn't seem to fully grasp my answer to you...



as i stated before... it's a crime... just like i stated the second time... if you go to jail in modern society... it is considered paying your debt to society... no matter what the crime is... so now you are considered PUBLIC property instead of PRIVATE property...

supposed the crime was against the man who "owned" her... so what?

are you saying that's any different than that same crime being considered committed against the public in general?

again... PUBLIC and PRIVATE property is the only difference in the two systems...



i already provided the verse where it says the raping a woman IS a crime... you just chose to ignore it...

You know what, that question in itself makes me

The brick wall before me has been well and truly bashed... my head is hurting... and so I shall call it a day, and take a paracetamol.

oh right..wearing a short skirt..makes it all ok to rape someone

Good grief BMI can't beleive this was posted, the woman is less than so its okay to rape her and objectify her...claim ownership over her this is biblical teachings......i had to call my hubby over for this, he didn't beleive that this was actually posted, He thought I was exaggerating......That will be the day when i am referred to as a possession...

I know LMAO..maybe he posted it as sarcasim...or maybe he meant it LOL but there are men that do think, if a woman wears a short skirt she is begging to be brutally raped

it makes you think dont it sis?? if the bible was so clear on sexual abuse to women and kids and not skip and hop around it saying...if she is engaged.then its BAD..screw that crap...

And as for kids..not once have I read anything about abuse to kids...although one or 2 have posted - Umm it says jesus says dont harm anyone..umm thats dont cut the jib with me

you either make a clear point about it..or NOT...easy

Well, I'd love to stay an chat, but my owner tells me he wants food and drink so better run along like a good wifey wench.

OWNER?? how much did he pay for you??

"Do not make sexual advances" is a whole lot different than rape. It's never ok to rape anyone.

says the woman who just said... "i had to call my hubby" lol

God forbid... but are you implying that kids are less than human?

if the word KID isn't used... does that mean that they are not referred to?

we have told you multiple times... that the Bible covers ALL... you CHOOSE to ignore that...

what do you think the words MEN, WOMEN, EVERYONE, and ALL mean?

it seems as if you consider kids to be an entirely different species...

Tuppence ha'penny... from a travelling wench seller. He says he overpaid.

You obviously ingnored my last post directed to you. This is the way it was back then. To take the freedoms and laws and all around ways of life based on the society we have today and use them today to judge that which was done in the past is ignorant and ridiculous. This activist attitude you have didnt really come around untill a hundred or so years back anyway. Women were content being the house wife and the mother and being married it was in the society they lived in it was expected and just like now the way we live is taught to us and expected.

This is the way it was done then, in the past. And not only in Hebrew culture but many others around the world. So really you should gripe with all cultures and societies from the Japanese to the American Native and everyone inbetween because nine out of ten had such laws. And from many historical and literary facts and aspects both women and men were comfortable with such. Look at it this way. You are content with the way your life is, correct? Unless you are completely miserable you are content with how society is today compared to how it was in the past, right? And I would bet my last dollar that the societies of the future will too look down on our ways of life and ridicule them as you are doing now. The point is its in the past. Its history and until you find a time machine and go back there to change things all your doing is wasting space whinning about it.

The term Rebel is used as a term as a rebel against the law. The rebelious son was a criminal because he did not uphold to the laws at the time which were the ten comandments. And wow! Most of if not all of the criminal acts based on breaking the commandments. Killing, adultery, theft, falsifing information, and so forth are still considered criminal in our times. He did get the better deal because unlike modern law he had the chance to confess and be void from his parents. If parents didnt get through to him then he was sent to the judges and if they couldnt then he was stoned. Three strike rule in effect. Much like today. But unlike in the past, today if you shoplifted you would go strait to trial and strait to jail with a hefty fine to boot. You wouldnt be able to go to your parents and forgive and forget, no the cops would bust down the door with a warrant and nab you. And unlike the past of confessing and being forgiven by the judges you are given a trial where your found guilty and sent to jail or the electric chair depending on the severity of the crime. See what I was getting at.

I also noticed you didnt reply to my post directed to you in the other topic we were debating in yesterday. They will also give my insite to what you are trying to prove. I am asuming you either ignored them or the cat's got your tounge.

I didn't.



But we're not talking about the laws of man. We're talking about the Bible... the rule book based on the word of God. If God handed down his laws to man, and he is a just God, then those laws should have been just, and not solely for the men of that time. A just law is such for the entirety of time. I was not asking if in the eyes of man the crime was against the owner of the woman. The question related to the content of the Bible. By God's law, was the crime against the woman or her owner. If the crime was considered, according to Bible, to be a crime against a woman's owner, then it is God's law that is flawed, not the law of the men of that time.

Unless God's law is only applicable to the men of that time.

And as it has allready been pointed out, the men of that time used the laws of God to create their societies and civilizations. But still today they still use the laws of God to create laws. Look at the US constitution and even monarchies and democracies of Europe, as they do too. Children male or female are still considered property of their parents until they reach adulthood.

The civilizations of the past used the laws of God as they saw fit or to the best of their knowlege much like we do today. Also If you are Christian the laws of the Old Testament are in void to the new laws created by Christ. If you are going to point out verses in one part of the Bible you should point out all of them. Not just the ones you want to in order to try and prove your point.

And what did Christ preach? Uphold the commandments of my father keep true to the faith. That is all. Everyting else is superficial when it comes to a Christian.

Offhand, there's the one that goes... "It would be better for you to hang a millstone around your neck and go into the sea, than it would be for you to harm a child." That is a paraphrase because I don't have my Bible in front of me, and can't recall off the top of my head exactly where it is. Yes, BM, believe it or not, the Bible does not condone/suggest child abuse, (although it is becoming more and more popular to suggest that it does).

I will look up some more for you.

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another's lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. -----------In otherwords do not rape!!
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children. --------------------------------meaning do not abuse lil children in any way this also means sexually...!!!

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Those rules are phony...Most people in the church of satan dont even believe satan is a real entity...but a pure human emotion....garbage...satanists love hurting little children, and lavey knows it. Remember satan is the father of all lies, im going out on a limb here saying those 11 "rules" are lies...

Depends on if the people who claim to abide by them really follow them. If they dont yes they are phoney if they do then no they are not. Rules are never phoney only the men and women that claim to abide by them. The same could be said for any number of rules and laws to follow.

The church of Satan has nothing to do with the Satan of JudeoChristian Mythology.

The word Satan is only used in its Hebrew context of Adversary. As in the COS is the Adversary of all religions.

The COS is more or less just ritualised Aethiesm. Or perhaps ritualised Non-Theism is closer based on rule #7

why? because YOU said so?

what does it matter if it's considered a crime, regardless of who it's against?

i think you just want to knit pick... next you'll be wondering who's boat Jesus and the desciples were on when Jesus calmed the sea...